United States v. Brazzel

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Brazzel

236 F. App'x 26

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2007

Docket06-31034

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 F. App'x 26 (United States v. Brazzel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Brazzel, 236 F. App'x 26 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Randall M. Brazzel appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence of 36 months in prison, which was nine-months above the upper end of the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months calculated in the presentence report.

Brazzel argues first that the district court erred by sua sponte imposing a sentencing above the guidelines range without first providing notice of its intent to do so. In support of his argument he relies on the reasoning of Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991), and Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(h). His argu *27 ment is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 720-23 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06-1381).

Brazzel also argues that his 36-month sentence was unreasonable. The district court’s sentencing colloquy shows that the court considered Brazzel’s particular characteristics and circumstances and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment and adequate deterrence for further offenses. The court’s comments and written statement of reasons show that the court was aware of the correctly calculated guidelines range and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Brazzel fails to show that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received great weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-09 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Randall M. Brazzel appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence of 36 months in prison, which was nine-months above the upper end of the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 months calculated in the presentence report.

Brazzel argues first that the district court erred by sua sponte imposing a sentencing above the guidelines range without first providing notice of its intent to do so. In support of his argument he relies on the reasoning of Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991), and Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(h). His argu *27 ment is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 720-23 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06-1381).

Brazzel also argues that his 36-month sentence was unreasonable. The district court’s sentencing colloquy shows that the court considered Brazzel’s particular characteristics and circumstances and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment and adequate deterrence for further offenses. The court’s comments and written statement of reasons show that the court was aware of the correctly calculated guidelines range and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Brazzel fails to show that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received great weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-09 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F. App'x 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brazzel-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack